Prognostic models for clinical outcomes in patients with venous leg ulcers: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify prognostic models for clinical application in patients with venous leg ulcers (VLUs). METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases from inception to December 22, 2021. Eligible studies reported prognostic models aimed at developing, validating, and adjusting multivariable prognostic models that include multiple prognostic factors combined, and that predicted clinical outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the CHARMS checklist and PROBAST short form questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified, of which three were validation studies of previously published models, four reported derivation and validation of models, and the remainder reported derivation models only. There was substantial heterogeneity in the model characteristics, including 11 studies focused on wound healing outcomes reporting 91 different predictors. Three studies shared similar predicted outcomes, follow-up timepoint and used a Cox proportional hazards model. However, these models reported different predictor selection methods and different predictors and it was therefore not feasible to summarize performance, such as discriminative ability. CONCLUSIONS: There are no standout risk prediction models in the literature with promising clinical application for patients with VLUs. Future research should focus on developing and validating high-performing models in wider VLU populations.

Efficacy and Safety of Brolucizumab, Aflibercept, and Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Visual Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Oedema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Key clinical guidelines recommend anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy as first-line treatment for visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO). A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted comparing the relative efficacy of the anti-VEGF brolucizumab with a focused network of the most relevant comparator dosing regimens approved in countries other than the USA (aflibercept, ranibizumab). The safety and tolerability of brolucizumab were also assessed. METHODS: A broad SLR was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials to ensure all relevant potential comparators were captured. Identified studies were refined to those appropriate for inclusion in the NMA. A Bayesian NMA was conducted comparing brolucizumab 6 mg (every 12 [Q12W]/every 8 weeks [Q8W]) with relevant aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the NMA. At 1-year follow-up, the various aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens were mostly comparable with brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W across key visual and anatomical outcomes, except brolucizumab 6 mg was favoured over ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) for the change from baseline (CFB) in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and BCVA loss/gain of pre-specified numbers of letters, and over ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata for CFB in diabetic retinopathy severity scale, and retinal thickness. At year 2, where data were available, brolucizumab 6 mg showed similar results across efficacy outcomes versus all other anti-VEGFs. In most cases, discontinuation rates (all cause, and due to adverse events [AE]) and serious and overall rates of AEs excluding ocular inflammatory events were similar (in unpooled and pooled-treatment analyses) versus comparators. CONCLUSION: Brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W was comparable or superior to aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens for various visual and anatomical efficacy outcomes and discontinuation rates.

Methods for Estimating Long-Term Outcomes for Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in HER2-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer After Two or More Anti-HER2 Therapies.

BACKGROUND: DESTINY-Breast01 (NCT03248492) is a phase II single-arm trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in adults with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) unresectable or metastatic breast cancer (u/mBC) who have received two or more prior anti-HER2 therapies. OBJECTIVES: Objectives were to explore approaches for estimating long-term overall survival (OS) with T-DXd from immature data (June 2020 data-cut; median follow-up 20.5 months), and compare predicted long-term outcomes with UK-recommended non-targeted therapies eribulin, capecitabine, and vinorelbine. METHODS: Two methods were used to model T-DXd long-term OS: (1) applying a hazard ratio (HR) to the OS curve for another HER2 targeted therapy (third-line trastuzumab emtansine [T-DM1]) with longer trial follow-up; and (2) extrapolating T-DXd OS data directly. Comparator OS was based on direct extrapolation of published data (comparison with vinorelbine OS was not possible). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using a previously published model of utility. RESULTS: Both extrapolation methods demonstrated longer mean/median OS with T-DXd versus eribulin, and capecitabine (44.7/32.9 months [applying an HR to the T-DM1 OS curve]; 47.7/29.9 months [using direct extrapolation]; vs 11.3/9.2, and 17.8/13.6 months, respectively), translating to 2.3, 2.3, 0.6, and 0.9 discounted QALYs. CONCLUSION: Alternative methods produced consistent results, showing T-DXd is associated with substantial gains in OS and QALYs versus eribulin, and capecitabine. Modelled median OS results were similar to a later data-cut (median of 29.1 months, March 2021 data-cut). The modelling approach in which an HR was applied to the T-DM1 OS curve informed a submission to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

A population-adjusted indirect comparison of cardiovascular benefits of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular (CV) effects of once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg are reported in their respective placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), SUSTAIN 6 and REWIND. There is no head-to-head CVOT comparing these treatments and heterogeneity between their CVOTs renders conventional indirect comparison inappropriate. Therefore, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to compare the effects of s.c. semaglutide and dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Individual patient data from SUSTAIN 6 were matched with aggregate data from REWIND, using a propensity score method to balance baseline effect-modifying patient characteristics. Hazard ratios (HRs) for three-point (3P) MACE (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke), anchored via placebo, were then indirectly compared between balanced populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the main analysis. RESULTS: After matching, included effect modifiers were balanced. In the main analysis, s.c. semaglutide was associated with a statistically significant 35% reduction in 3P MACE versus placebo (HR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.48, 0.87]) and nonsignificantly greater reduction (26%) versus dulaglutide (HR, 0.74 [95% CI; 0.54, 1.01]). Results were supported by all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a statistically significant lower risk of 3P MACE for s.c. semaglutide versus placebo, in a population with lower prevalence of pre-existing CVD than that in the pre-specified primary analysis in SUSTAIN 6. Reduction in 3P MACE with s.c. semaglutide was greater than with dulaglutide, although not statistically significant.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg.

AIM: To compare the effects of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Bucher indirect comparison was conducted to compare efficacy outcomes of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg using published results from the SUSTAIN 7 and AWARD-11 trials. Sensitivity analyses using individual patient data from SUSTAIN 7 and aggregate data from AWARD-11 were conducted to explore the impact of adjustment for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.24%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.43, -0.05), with comparable reductions in HbA1c versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg with an ETD of -0.07%-points (95% CI -0.26, 0.12). Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.

Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide vs Empagliflozin Added to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes: Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: No head-to-head trials have directly compared once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, with empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: We indirectly compared the efficacy of OW semaglutide 1 mg vs once-daily (OD) empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, using individual patient data (IPD) and meta-regression methodology. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: IPD for patients with T2D receiving metformin monotherapy and randomized to OW semaglutide 1 mg (SUSTAIN 2, 3, 8 trials), or to OD empagliflozin 25 mg (PIONEER 2 trial) were included. Meta-regression analyses were adjusted for potential prognostic factors and effect modifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline to end-of-treatment (~1 year) in HbA1c (%-point) and body weight (kg). Responder outcomes and other clinically relevant efficacy measures were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between OW semaglutide (n = 995) and empagliflozin (n = 410). Our analyses showed that OW semaglutide significantly reduced mean HbA1c and body weight vs empagliflozin (estimated treatment difference: -0.61%-point [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.72; -0.49] and -1.65 kg [95% CI: -2.22; -1.08], respectively; both P < 0.0001). Complementary analyses supported the robustness of these results. A significantly greater proportion of patients on OW semaglutide vs empagliflozin also achieved HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison suggests that OW semaglutide 1 mg provides superior reductions in HbA1c and body weight vs OD empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D when added to metformin monotherapy.

Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus GLP-1 RAs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving 1-2 Oral Antidiabetics: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Orally administered semaglutide is the first glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for oral administration. As head-to-head trials assessing orally administered semaglutide as an add-on to 1-2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) vs other GLP-1 RAs are limited, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of orally administered semaglutide 14 mg once-daily (QD) vs injectable GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in patients inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs. Data at 26 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes feasible for the NMA: change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, HbA1c target levels (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%), blood pressure, and any gastrointestinal adverse events specified in system organ class. Data were synthesised using NMA and a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: In total, 27 studies were included in the analyses. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c vs most comparators, and numerically greater reductions vs semaglutide 0.5 mg once-weekly (QW), dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW and liraglutide 1.8 mg QD. HbA1c reductions with semaglutide 1 mg QW were numerically greater than those with orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD. Reductions in body weight for orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD were significantly greater than all comparators except semaglutide QW (both doses). Orally administered semaglutide QD 14 mg was associated with statistically similar odds of experiencing gastrointestinal adverse events vs injectable GLP-1 RAs. CONCLUSION: Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD as an add-on to 1-2 OADs is one of the most efficacious GLP-1 RAs for reducing HbA1c and body weight at 26 ± 4 weeks. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD is well tolerated, with a safety profile in line with the GLP-1 RA class. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

First-line treatment in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting results for eligible treatments. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted to assess the relative effectiveness of treatments, with progression-free survival (PFS) reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: Eleven unique RCTs were suitable for inclusion in the NMA. In the base case, in terms of PFS, sunitinib was superior compared with bevacizumab + IFN-α (HR = 0.79, 95% CrI: 0.64 - 0.96), everolimus (HR = 0.70, 95% CrI: 0.56 - 0.87), sorafenib (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI: 0.40 - 0.77) and temsirolimus + bevacizumab (HR = 0.74, 95% CrI: 0.56 - 0.96). Although, the point values for the mean and median HRs were < 1.0, there was no significant difference in PFS between sunitinib and axitinib, pazopanib or tivozanib. Although sensitivity analyses impacted the results of the NMA, no treatment was significantly more efficacious than sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Results from this analysis suggest that there is no treatment superior to the current benchmark treatment, sunitinib, in the management of advanced RCC in the first-line setting.

Second-line treatments for the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which includes the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor axitinib. METHODS: Database searches were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Indirect comparisons using a fixed-effect Bayesian model were used to assess the relative effectiveness of treatments and reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: Although 24 RCTs met eligibility criteria, only three studies were included in the fixed-effect Bayesian meta-analysis, due to differences in patient inclusion criteria/reported outcomes in the wider dataset. Robust meta-analysis was restricted to the subgroup pretreated with cytokines. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), axitinib was superior compared with placebo (HR = 0.25, 95% CrI: 0.17 - 0.38), sorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.32 - 0.68) and pazopanib (HR = 0.47, 95% CrI: 0.26 - 0.85). An analysis including all patients, regardless of previous first-line treatment, reported similar results. There was no significant difference in PFS between sorafenib and pazopanib. CONCLUSION: Results from the present study suggest that axitinib will be an important treatment option to extend PFS in the management of advanced RCC in the second-line setting. Ongoing research will define the optimal treatment algorithm leading to a patient-focused treatment strategy.

Limitations of the methods used for calculating quality-adjusted life-year values.

OBJECTIVE: To test the validity of the techniques used to calculate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values based on utility functions, using a real population dataset. DESIGN: Using the standard gamble technique, we gathered the preferences of a population sample of 189 individuals on a combination of probabilities concerning four simple health states (no physical disability, limp, walk with crutches and need a wheelchair), and three life-year spans (5, 10 and 15 years). Each of the four assumptions of the multiplicative model was tested based on the results of the experiment. RESULTS: The utility of the health state "limp" was high at 0.89 and that of "walk with crutches" only slightly lower at 0.85. However, of the 189 individuals, only 57 are not in contradiction with the assumption of mutual utility independence since they strictly preferred (15 years, "need a wheelchair") over (10 years, "need a wheelchair") and (15 years, "need a wheelchair") over (5 years, "need a wheelchair"). For these 57 individuals, the results of this study do not fit the assumptions underpinning the multiplicative model. CONCLUSION: This work suggests that the techniques used as a basis from which to calculate QALY values are flawed. In particular, the underlying assumptions of the multiattribute utility model do not correspond to behaviour patterns observed in a real population. It therefore appears that use of the QALY technique should be questioned in healthcare decision-making settings.